Paul M. Jones wrote on 11/02/2016 17:16:
Finally, these are Guidelines, but for whom? Is their violation actionable? If
so, by whom, and in what circumstances? If not, then the Guidelines should say
so.
My understanding (admittedly I've only skim-read the text) was that this
document was adv
Hi Derick,
> On Feb 9, 2016, at 06:33, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> Things have quieted down around the Code of Conduct and Contributor
> Guidelines process
For my part, at least, things are in "hibernation" until the wiki is updated
with the new draft. Meanwhile:
> - I had a call
Sammy Kaye Powers wrote on 10/02/2016 23:01:
Thanks so much for taking this up Derick! :)
The mission points could be reworked a bit.
* Make everybody happier, especially those responsible for developing PHP
itself.
This has a slight insinuation that non-internals/new people are
annoying to
Hi!
On 9 February 2016 at 13:56, Matt Prelude wrote:
> I feel that the CoC has a much greater chance of achieving consensus if we
> don't
> try to impose a 'court of law' alongside it, especially considering that
> most
> proposals for a 'court' have been secretive and focused on privacy rather
>
Thanks so much for taking this up Derick! :)
The mission points could be reworked a bit.
> * Make everybody happier, especially those responsible for developing PHP
> itself.
This has a slight insinuation that non-internals/new people are
annoying to the core PHP team. Also, what makes one happ
Matt Prelude wrote on 09/02/2016 17:56:
Rowan
On 09/02/16 17:42, Rowan Collins wrote:
Without going into point by point discussion, I think you're
conflating several things here:
1) the right of the accused to know *what* they are accused of, which
I agree is fundamental
2) the right of the
Matt Prelude wrote on 09/02/2016 15:51:
Without the right to face the accuser, the accusation, or a guarantee
that
all supporting AND contradictory evidence and testimony will be
published,
this is a 'secret court' proposal.
Without going into point by point discussion, I think you're conflat
Pierre Joye wrote on 09/02/2016 16:00:
Also one problem we have now with the RFCs is feedback not being taken
into account because it does not match the author ideas.
In a previous discussion, I backed the idea of encouraging all RFCs to
have multiple authorship. The idea that an RFC "belongs"
Hi,
So, rather than putting words in your mouth, I will ask the question
directly: you say above that you do not agree that there is a need for
a *new* enforcement process, but do you agree that there is a need for
the *old* enforcement process to be recognised as such?
Yes, have no issue wit
Matt Prelude wrote on 09/02/2016 15:51:
On 09/02/16 15:24, Rowan Collins wrote:
That said, I am not convinced either
a) that the current process has any guarantee of transparency - who
exactly has the right to block people from the list, or revoke other
karma? what transparent process are the
hi Zeev,
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> Feel free to reply here with suggestions, comments, etc.
>
> I think this is a pretty good start and I can stand behind most of this text.
> I do have a number of issues/suggestions with it though (apologies for not
> doing this s
Hi Rowan,
On 09/02/16 15:24, Rowan Collins wrote:
That said, I am not convinced either
a) that the current process has any guarantee of transparency - who
exactly has the right to block people from the list, or revoke other
karma? what transparent process are they obliged to follow when doing
Lester Caine wrote on 09/02/2016 15:31:
In the context of policing CoC 'infringements' then a threat of some
action should be enough to defuse the situation.
Agreed.
There is no need to
'settle out of court', but my point was more one of the feeling these
days that "out of court settlement"
Hi,
On 09/02/16 15:23, David Zuelke wrote:
I agree with Zeev here. It would be good to simplify this, and adding
an explicit note about the inverse as well. Something like: "Debate
issues and ideas, not the person holding them. Regardless of what side
of a discussion you're on, realize that cr
On 09/02/16 15:01, Rowan Collins wrote:
> Lester Caine wrote on 09/02/2016 14:55:
>> On 09/02/16 14:32, Rowan Collins wrote:
>>> nobody would agree to an "out of court settlement" if there was no court
>>> case to be avoided.
>> That one is probably a bad example. How many cases are settled simply
On 09.02.2016, at 15:33, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>> 1. "Debate the technical issues, and never attack a person's opinion.
>> People will disagree, so be it."
>>
>> I think this sentence is problematic. Not that I'm pro-attacks, but
>> opinions - a
Matt Prelude wrote on 09/02/2016 15:11:
Taking your nuclear weapons analogy a little further, we are now (as a
world) very concerned about making sure that the wrong people do not get
access to nuclear weapons. Whilst we cannot go back and un-invent the
nuclear weapon, we can avoid creating a pun
Thanks for the work, Derick. Looks good!
(aaand I just top-replied :p)
> On 09.02.2016, at 13:33, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> Things have quieted down around the Code of Conduct and Contributor
> Guidelines process, but I have not been sitting still. In the last week,
> the followi
Hi,
On 09/02/16 14:32, Rowan Collins wrote:
Having procedures for violation and not using them could still have
value. The most famous example of this is surely nuclear weapons,
which are frequently cited as a deterrent, not intended for actual use.
A less violent example in the UK would be t
Lester Caine wrote on 09/02/2016 14:55:
On 09/02/16 14:32, Rowan Collins wrote:
nobody would agree to an "out of court settlement" if there was no court
case to be avoided.
That one is probably a bad example. How many cases are settled simply to
avoid exorbitant legal costs? Being right has not
On 09/02/16 14:32, Rowan Collins wrote:
> nobody would agree to an "out of court settlement" if there was no court
> case to be avoided.
That one is probably a bad example. How many cases are settled simply to
avoid exorbitant legal costs? Being right has nothing to do with the
results, or 'no admi
On 09/02/16 14:33, Derick Rethans wrote:
>> 5. I think the 'max 2 lines email signature' requirement is a bit
>> > archaic. Who cares? Do we expect people to change their signature
>> > especially for internals? Not important, but if we're nitpicking :)
> Heh - it's always been in there ! :þ
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, Levi Morrison wrote:
> > Voting is non-binding, and will end at Friday February 12th, at noon
> > UTC.
>
> What does this mean in this context? We're voting but nothing will
> actually change?
Just want to see how close this text is to being done, so that we can
move over to
Hi,
> I feel that the "Contributor Guidelines" are now in a reasonable shape
> to do a quick poll to gauge acceptability. As this is not a formal RFC
> vote, it's simply done through an online poll:
note - the voting thing is now on the WIKI at:
https://wiki.php.net/adopt-code-of-conduct/guid
Matt Prelude wrote on 09/02/2016 13:56:
If the Drupal CWG have not needed to impose punishments as a result of
their
CoC, and in the history of Internals you could count the bans on one
hand,
then I really don't see why we need to go to the lengths of establishing
committees and punishment proc
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> 1. "Debate the technical issues, and never attack a person's opinion.
> People will disagree, so be it."
>
> I think this sentence is problematic. Not that I'm pro-attacks, but
> opinions - as ideas - should absolutely be up for scrutiny and debate.
> Voting is non-binding, and will end at Friday February 12th, at noon
> UTC.
What does this mean in this context? We're voting but nothing will
actually change?
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, Joe Watkins wrote:
> Morning Derick,
>
> I know you're asking about another document right now, but I still find
> the language of the CoC jarring.
>
> This: "Coercing other members to vote for a particular option on an
> RFC, or to change or withdraw an RFC".
These
Hi,
On 09/02/16 12:33, Derick Rethans wrote:
[snip]
- Texts should be void from ambiguity.
I couldn't agree more. Ambiguity has a chilling effect on speech, and will
damage the quality of discourse on internals.
Having said that, I think that the CoC being proposed is too wordy, and
still
> Feel free to reply here with suggestions, comments, etc.
I think this is a pretty good start and I can stand behind most of this text.
I do have a number of issues/suggestions with it though (apologies for not
doing this sooner - I was swamped in the last 3 weeks with travel & out of town
vi
Morning Derick,
I know you're asking about another document right now, but I still find
the language of the CoC jarring.
This: "Coercing other members to vote for a particular option on an
RFC, or to change or withdraw an RFC".
That's too vague: https://twitter.com/krakjoe/status/685
Hello!
Things have quieted down around the Code of Conduct and Contributor
Guidelines process, but I have not been sitting still. In the last week,
the following things happened:
- I had a call with the Drupal Community Working Group - as suggested by
Larry Garfield. Stanislav was on the cal
32 matches
Mail list logo
